Family Background, Parent Involvement, and Shadow Education Participation of Middle School Students: Empirical Analysis from CEPS2015 Data Xiang Gao, Haiping Xue Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China Abstract. Using the 2015 data of the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS), the relationship between family socioeconomic background, parent involvement, and shadow education participation was explored through structural equations. The results showed that: parent involve- ment strengthened shadow education participation; parent involvement played a part in the mediating role in the influence of family socioeco- nomic background on shadow education participation. Parent involve- ment activates the advantage of family socioeconomic background. Fam- ilies with high socioeconomic backgrounds are more active in partici- pating in shadow education, and families of different strata are divided into opportunities for participation in shadow education. Best Evidence in Chinese Education 2021; 7(1):893-905. Doi: 10.15354/bece.21.ar004. How to Cite: Gao, X. & Xue, H. (2021). Family background, parent involvement, and shadow education participation of middle school students: Empirical analysis from CEPS2015 data. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 7(1):893-905. Keywords: Shadow Education; Parent Involvement; Family Socioeconomic Back- ground; High-Order Mediation Effect; Structural Equation Model About the Authors: Xiang Gao, Ed.D. Candidate, School of Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China. Email: 393156557@qq.com. Correspondence to: Haiping Xue, Professor, Director, Institute of Educational Economics and Management, School of Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China. Email: xuehaiping_416@163.com. Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No.1, 2021 894 Funding: This study is a phased achievement of the National Natural Science Foundation of China’s general pro- ject “Family Capital, Shadow Education and Social Reproduction” (Project #: 71774112). Conflict of Interests: None. © 2021 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved. Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher. Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 895 N the 1960s, Coleman and his colleagues published the “Equal Educational Oppor- tunity Report.” The report found that family background is an essential factor that affects student development and academic performance, and is the regenerating source of educational inequality and even social inequality, and has a more significant impact than school (Coleman, 1966). Family background currently affects student de- velopment through two main paths: parental participation in education and providing children with differentiated educational opportunities. Parents’ educational participation indicates that parents influence students’ learning and promote students’ development through direct participation in students’ learning guidance and supervision (Epstein, 1986). In the case of the same school, parents provide differentiated educational oppor- tunities for their children outside the school mainly by participating in “shadow educa- tion” (that is, extracurricular tutoring) to improve students’ educational competitiveness (Zhang & Bray, 2018). So what is the relationship between these two paths? What role does parent involvement play in the influence of family socioeconomic background on shadow education participation? Literature Review Coleman, Hill, Bronfenbrenner, Joyce Epstein, and others have defined parent involve- ment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Coleman, 1988; Epstein, 1987; Hill & Taylor, 2004). The more recognized definition is: parent involvement is also called parent involvement, that is, “parent involvement in the child’s education.” Its purpose is for the excellent development and growth of children (Conger et al., 2007). In the empirical analysis of the connotation and types of parent involvement in China and abroad, specific opera- tional definitions of parent involvement will be made, such as parental supervision of learning, homework guidance, parental expectations and parent-child communication, and parent-teacher communication (Morgan & Sørensen, 1999). Study on the Influence of Family Background on Shadow Education Participation Studies abroad have found that the family socioeconomic background has an essential influence on shadow education. Darby, Tansel and Bircan, Bray and Kwok used quanti- tative methods to analyze the effect of family factors on extracurricular tutoring (Bray & Kwok, 2013; Southgate, 2009; Tansel & Bircan Bodur, 2008). Using qualitative in- terviews and observation and tracking methods, Lareau found that middle-class children are more involved in organized extracurricular activities, including extracurricular tu- toring activities (Lareau, 2009). Domestic scholars Haiping Xue, Binli Chen, Hongli Chu, Manchao Zeng, etc., used quantitative methods to analyze data and found their parents’ educational back- ground, parents’ occupation, and family income have an impact on students’ participa- tion in shadow education (Xue, 2016; Chen & Bai, 2015; Chu, 2009; Zeng et al., 2010). Xuelian Gao used the method of fieldwork to find that urban children mainly participate I Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 896 in extracurricular tutoring in their spare time, and children from migrant workers’ fami- lies mainly take “free-range” (Gao, 2017). Research on the Influence of Family Background on Parent Involvement The theory of social capital believes that the higher the family’s social and economic background, the higher the emphasis on education and active participation (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Family stress theory (McCubbin et al., 1980) believes that families with low socioeconomic conditions usually do not have high parent involvement behaviors due to enormous economic pressure. The family absence theory believes families with low parent involvement are rooted in the class’s massive gap (He, 2008). Global empirical studies have also found that family socioeconomic back- ground strongly affected parent involvement (Balli, 1996; Bracey, 1996). Domestic scholars Xiaorui Huang (Huang & An, 2008), Chonghan Wu (Wu, et al., 2017), Guiqing An and Yang Yang (An, & Yang, 2018) all believed that families with higher socioeconomic backgrounds have higher parents’ enthusiasm for participating in their children’s learning. Research on the Impact of Parent Involvement on Shadow Education Participation At present, there are not many studies on the influence of parent involvement on shad- ow education participation. Xiaoshan Lin’s research found that the longer parents spend with their children, the more children’s expenditure and opportunities for out-of-school education consumption (Lin, 2018). Haiping Xue studied structural equation modeling and found that parents’ educational expectations positively affect extracurricular tutor- ing (Xue, 2017). Jing Li and Haiping Xue found that in academic tutoring, the longer parents spend with their children, and the more often they supervise homework each week, the more likely they are to participate in extracurricular tuition (Li & Xue, 2016). Jiali Li’s research found that parent-child companionship, parent-child activities, etc., can positively predict the participation probability of tutoring, while parent-child com- munication and family-school communication have little effect (Li & Xue, 2019). Data Source and Variable Description The data used in this study all come from the 2014-2015 China Education Panel Survey (CEPS). In 2015, CEPS investigated the relevant situation of eighth-grade students in middle school. The variables used in the study are shown in Table 1. Results Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 897 Table 1. Description of Variables in Statistical Analysis. Variable Type Variable Name Variable Description Shadow Educa- tion Whether eighth grade students participate in shadow education 0=no, 1=yes Family Socioeconomic Background Parent’s highest education 1=primary school and below, 2=junior high school, 3=high school, 4=junior college, 5=undergraduate and above Parents’ highest occupational stratification 1=lower level, 2=middle level, 3=upper level Family’s financial situation 1=very difficult, 2=very difficult, 3=medium, 4=relatively rich, 5=very rich Family Supervise How often do parents check homework a week 1=no, 2=one to two days, 3=three to four days, 4=almost every day How often do parents guide homework a week 1=No, 2=One to two days, 3=Three to four days, 4=Almost every day Parent Involvement Family Communicate Discuss school matters with parents 1=never, 2=occasionally, 3=always Discuss with parents about classmates 1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always Discuss teacher matters with parents 1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always Discuss your concerns with your parents 1=Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Always Home school communication Number of parent- teacher communication this semester 1=never, 2=once, 3=two to four times, 4=five times and more Number of times teach- ers communicated with parents this semester 1=never, 2=once, 3=two to four times, 4=five times and more Family expect Parents’ expectations of their children’s education 1=graduated from junior high school, 2=high school, 3=associate, 4=undergraduate, 5=graduate and above Parents’ confidence in their children’s future 1=not confident at all, 2=not very confident, 3=relatively confident, 4=very confident Control Variable Gender 0=male, 1=female Grades 1=bad, 2=lower middle, 3=medium, 4=upper middle, 5=very good The Impact of Family Socioeconomic Background and Parent Involvement on Shadow Education Participation In order to verify the research hypothesis, take shadow education participation as the dependent variable, select three variables of family socioeconomic background and ten variables of parent involvement as independent variables, and use gender and perfor- mance as control variables to establish a binary logistic regression model as follows: Y = F (I, S, F) Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 898 Table 2. The Influence of Family Socioeconomic Background and Parental Participation on Shadow Education Participation. Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Gender: Female 0.25*** 0.29*** 0.22*** 0.25*** 0.29*** 0.29*** Grades 0.06** 0.07*** 0.03 -0.04 0.05** -0.03 Family Socioeconomic Background Parents' Education 0.45*** 0.44*** 0.42*** 0.42*** 0.40*** 0.44*** 0.38*** Parent Occupation 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.35*** 0.35*** 0.34*** 0.35*** 0.33*** Economic Status 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.26*** 0.27*** 0.24*** Home Supervision Check Homework 0.20*** 0.17*** Guide Homework -0.04 -0.07** Family Communication Discuss School 0.13** 0.09* Discuss With Classmates 0.09* 0.06 Discussion Teacher 0.09* 0.03 Discuss Your Mind 0.02 -0.03 Family Expectations Parent Expectations 0.13*** 0.12*** Future Confidence 0.23*** 0.15*** Family-School Communication Active Communication 0.16*** 0.12*** Passive Communication 0.00 0.00 Constant Term -3.86*** -4.11*** -4.38*** -4.65*** -5.16*** -4.44*** -5.70*** Sample 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 9191 Cox & Snell R 2 0.12 0.123 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 Nagelkerke R 2 0.17 0.170 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 Note: *p means p < 0.1, **p means p < 0.05, ***p means p < 0.01. In the model, Y represents whether the student participates in shadow educa- tion, I is an individual variable of the student, S is the family socioeconomic back- ground, and F is parent involvement. In Table 2, there was a significant positive correlation between parents’ educa- tional background, parents’ occupational grade, financial status, and student participa- tion rate in shadow education (model 1). The shadow education participation rate of girls was significantly higher than that of boys, and the higher the score, the higher the participation rate of shadow education (model 2). In Model 3, students whose homework was checked frequently were more like- ly to participate in extracurricular tutoring. In Model 4, “discussion school,” “discussion classmate,” and “discussion teacher” all had a significant favorable influence on stu- dents’ participation in shadow education. In Model 5, “parent education expectations” and “confidence” had a positive and significant impact on shadow education participa- Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 899 Figure 1. The Mediating Effect Model of Parental Participation in Four Dimensions. tion. This also verified previous literature results: the higher the parents’ expectations, the more confident they were in their children, and the more likely students were to par- ticipate in extracurricular tutoring. In Model 6, “actively communicating with teachers” positively and significantly impacted students’ participation in extracurricular tutoring. Model 7 was a full-variable model; in addition to the index of homework guidance, most indicators of family socioeconomic background and parent involvement had a sig- nificant positive impact on shadow education. Parent involvement had not completely replaced shadow education but had become the driving force for students to participate in extracurricular tutoring. Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Parent Involvement in the Influence of Family Socioeconomic Background in Shadow Education Participation Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 900 Table 3. Intermediary Model Fitting Results of Various Dimen- sions of Parent Participation in Affecting Shadow Education Par- ticipation. Fitting Index CMIN DF CMIN/DF RMSEA NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI Home Supervision 564.375 18 31.354 0.057 0.955 0.930 0.956 0.932 0.956 Family Communication 870.167 33 26.369 0.053 0.960 0.945 0.961 0.947 0.961 Family-School Communication 739.436 18 41.080 0.066 0.927 0.887 0.929 0.889 0.929 Family Expectations 585.170 1 7 34.422 0.060 0.940 0.901 0.942 0.904 0.942 Judgment Criteria < 5.0 < 0.10 > 0.9 > 0.8 > 0.9 > 0.8 > 0.9 Based on the above research review and binary logistic regression analysis, and then referring to the structural equation related method (Hou et al., 2004), a mediating effect model between the three is constructed. The Mediation Effect of the Four Dimensions of Parent Involvement Figure 1 presents the analysis of the effect of family supervision, family communica- tion, family-school communication, and family expectations as intermediaries. The di- rect effects of family supervision, family communication, family-school communication, and family expectations on students’ participation in shadow education are 0.053, 0.056, 0.060, 0.088, respectively, and the t-test results are all significant. It can be seen that family expectations have the most significant impact on students’ participation in extra- curricular tutoring, followed by family-school communication, family communication, and family supervision. The formula for the total influence of family socioeconomic background on ex- tracurricular tutoring participation is c=c’+a*b, where c’ is the direct influence of fami- ly socioeconomic background on extracurricular tutoring. The real influence is the sum of direct and indirect influences. The total effect of family socioeconomic background on tutoring through the four parent involvement dimensions is family supervision 0.398, family communication 0.401, family-school communication 0.396, and family expecta- tions 0.398. The fitting results of the four-dimensional mediation model are shown in Table 3. Except for CMIN/DF > 5, all other fitting indexes of each parent involvement dimen- sion reached an excellent level. The size of X2 (i.e., CMIN/DF) is related to the sample size N. When the sample size increases, X2 increases, so it is not limited to X2 as a dis- criminant index, but also other fitting indices (Hou et al., 2004). The sample size of this Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 901 Figure 2. The Mediating Role of Parent Involvement between Family Socioeconomic Background and Student Shadow Educa- tion Participation. study is 9,191. It can be referred to other fitting indicators, and other observation data would fit better. Analysis of the high-level mediation effect of parent in- volvement This study constructed a high-level mediation model in which family socioeconomic background influences student participation in shadow education. The mediation path model fits the data well: effective sample size N = 9,191, CMIN/DF = 29.416 > 5. Due to the large sample size, it cannot be judged by CMIN/DF alone. It should also be com- bined with other fitting indexes and the rationality of the relationship between the vari- ables, and whether the parameters’ estimation is appropriate (Hou et al., 2004). Approx- imate root mean square error RMSEA = 0.056, normalized goodness of fit index NFI = 0.920, comparative goodness of fit index CFI = 0.922, non-standardized goodness of fit index TLI = 0.904, and other fit indexes meet the criteria for judgment. These data indi- cate that the entire model fits well with the actual observation data. The model standardized regression path coefficient results are shown in Figure 2. The family socioeconomic background has a direct effect of 0.323 on student partici- pation in shadow education, an indirect effect of 0.077 (0.532*0.145), and a total effect Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 902 of 0.400. Accordingly, the family socioeconomic background directly affects whether students participate in extracurricular tutoring and indirectly affect parent involvement. The direct effect of parent involvement on extracurricular tutoring is 0.145. From the model results, parent involvement plays a part in an intermediary role in fami- ly socioeconomic background and shadow education participation. Conclusions and Discussion This study examined the relationship between family socioeconomic background and parent involvement in shadow education participation and reached the following con- clusions: (i) Parent involvement is a powerful driving force for students to partici- pate in shadow education, and the active participation of parents strengthens the partici- pation in shadow education. Parent involvement has a significant positive impact on middle school student shadow education participation; that is, the higher the degree of parent involvement, the greater the chance of students getting shadow education. Spe- cifically, family expectations have the most significant impact on shadow education participation, followed by family-school communication, family communication, and family supervision. Family expectations promote students to participate in tutoring most likely, mainly because parents hope to achieve social class upward mobility through education, and shadow education is one of the ways to improve educational competi- tiveness. (ii) Parent involvement plays a part in an intermediary role in the influ- ence of family socioeconomic background on shadow education participation. That is, family socioeconomic background affects the probability of students participating in shadow education through parent involvement. Specifically, family expectations have the most excellent intermediary effect in the family socioeconomic background, affect- ing students’ participation in shadow education, followed by family supervision, family communication, and family-school communication. Studies have proposed that parent involvement can activate the advantages of family background and empower children’s school education (Lareau, 1987). Therefore, parent involvement provides advantages for children’s school education and affects the chance of receiving shadow education. Families of different classes have differentiated participation opportunities in shadow education: parent involvement activates the ad- vantages of the family’s socioeconomic background, and families with high socioeco- nomic backgrounds often participate more actively in shadow education. The research conclusions include the family socioeconomic background, parent involvement, and shadow education in the Chinese context, confirming Lareau’s re- search in the United States. Lareau described in “Unequal Childhood” that middle-class American parents are more actively involved in students’ study and life and achieve “cooperative training” by arranging organized extracurricular activities for students; however, the working class is more inclined to “stocking.”, That is, let children “achieve natural growth” (Lareau, 2009). Different social classes make the degree of parent involvement different. Parents focus on activating resources based on class ad- Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 903 vantages, allowing their children to conform to educational organizations’ evaluation standards, and helping their children achieve success in school education (Lareau, 2009). This study explored the impact of parent involvement on shadow education participa- tion, and to a certain extent, improved Lareau’s parent involvement theory. We reached relevant conclusions through quantitative analysis. However, it is impossible to specifi- cally reveal how parent involvement activates family advantages, how different dimen- sions of participation affect extracurricular tutoring and the internal process of parents’ tutoring decision-making. If the above questions can be supplemented by qualitative research, the fundamental research will be more informative. References Curcio, G., Ferrara, M., & De Gennaro, L. (2006). Sleep loss, learning capacity, and ac- ademic performance. Sleep Medicine Review, 10(5):323-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2005.11.001 Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity [summary report (Vol. 2). US Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, Office of Education. Epstein, J. (1986). Parents’ Reactions to Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement. The Ele- mentary School Journal, 86(3):277-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/461449 Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2018). Equalising schooling, unequalising private supplemen- tary tutoring: access and tracking through shadow education in China. Oxford Review of Education, 44(2):221-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389 710 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the crea- tion of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1988):S95-S120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/228943 Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4):161-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963- 7214.2004.00298.x Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Na- ture and Design. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Epstein, J.L. (1987). Parent Involvement: What Research Says to Administrators. Education & Urban Society, 19(2):119-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245870190020 02 Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeco- nomic context of human development. An- nual Review of Psychology, 58:175-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.11 0405.085551 Morgan, S. L., & Sørensen, A. B. (1999). Paren- tal networks, social closure, and mathemat- ics learning: A test of Coleman’s social capi- tal explanation of school effects. American Sociological Review, 64(5):661-681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2657368 Zhao, Y., & Hong, Yi. (2012). Social capital and educational acquisition: A perspective of network resources and social closure. Socio- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2005.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1086/461449 https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710 https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389710 https://doi.org/10.1086/228943 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124587019002002 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124587019002002 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551 https://doi.org/10.2307/2657368 Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 904 logical Studies, 27(5): 47-69+243-244. [Chinese] https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?d bcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filenam e=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqt XBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVAC cswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fu zq Southgate, D.E. (2009). Determinants of shadow education: A cross-national analysis. Disser- tation; The Ohio State University. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num =osu1259703574 Tansel, A., & Bircan Bodur, F. (2008). Private Supplementary Tutoring in Turkey: Recent Evidence on Its Various, Aspects, ep: 1122804. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1122804 Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2013). Demand for pri- vate supplementary tutoring: conceptual consiDerations and socioeconomic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Re- view, 22(6):611-620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 7757(03)00032-3 Lareau, A. (2009). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life; Translated by Zhang Xu, Beijing: Peking University Press. Xue, H. (2016). Extracurricular tutoring, aca- demic performance and social reproduction. Education & Economy, 2016(2):32-43. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003- 4870.2016.02.005 Chen, B., & Bai, X. (2015). Family socioeco- nomic status, peer group pressure of parents, and tuition for urban primary school students: Based on a survey of primary schools in Haidian District, Beijing. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 36(5): 102-109. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001- 4519.2015.05.010208 Chu, H. (2009). The background characteristics and personal factors of the extracurricular tutoring families of primary and middle school students in my country. Education Research Monthly, 2009(12):22-27. [Chi- nese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674- 2311.2009.12.016 Zeng, M., Ding, X., & Shen, H. (2010). Analysis of the urban-rural differences in extracurric- ular tutoring for junior high school students: Based on the survey of junior high school students’ extracurricular tutoring in Gansu, Hunan and Jiangsu provinces. Education & Economy, 2010(2): 7-11. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003- 4870.2010.02.002 Gao, X. (2017). The separated childhood: the after-school world of urban children and ru- ral migrant children. Beijing Social Sciences, 2017(9):24-33. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.1 70903 Masarik, A.S., & Conger, R.D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13:85-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008 McCubbin, H. I., Joy, C. B., Cauble, A. E., Comeau, J. K., Patterson, J. M., & Needle, R. H. (1980). Family Stress and Coping: A Decade Review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(4):855-871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/351829 He, R. (2008). Home school and community collaboration: from concept research to prac- tice. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 7-8. [Chinese] Balli, S. J. (1996). Family diversity and the na- ture of parental involvement. In The Educa- tional Forum. Taylor & Francis Group, 60(2):149-155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729609335117 Bracey, G.W. (1996). SES and Involvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(2):169-170. https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c1 0f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842 Huang, X., & An, G. (2008). The relationship between parent participation types and chil- dren’s learning outcomes. Studies in Early Childhood Education, 2008(11):40-49. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11. 004 Wu, C., Zhang, J., & Wang, M. (2017). What hinders parents’ participation in their chil- dren’s education? Class differences, school selective inhibition and parent participation. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2012&filename=SHXJ201205003&v=rZKyj4fTYBxQrNqtXBS0aP0mfwOwLX74DgB3K6aNHqVACcswpp0T%25mmd2BlJJwUup%25mmd2Fuzq http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1259703574 http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1259703574 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1122804 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2016.02.005 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2016.02.005 https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001-4519.2015.05.010208 https://doi.org/10.14138/j.1001-4519.2015.05.010208 https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2009.12.016 https://doi.org/10.16477/j.cnki.issn1674-2311.2009.12.016 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2010.02.002 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2010.02.002 https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.170903 https://doi.org/10.13262/j.bjsshkxy.bjshkx.170903 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008 https://doi.org/10.2307/351829 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729609335117 https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842 https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842 https://search.proquest.com/openview/2b2c10f80d3fc930e5e13ab0f2ec4c51/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41842 https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11.004 https://doi.org/10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2018.11.004 Gao & Xue. Family, Parents, and Shadow Education in Middle School. Vol.7, No. 1, 2021 905 Educational Research, 38(1):85-94. [Chi- nese] http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/6 71297651.html An, G., & Yang, Y. (2018). A study on the im- pact of parental participation of families with different socioeconomic status on their children’s academic achievements. Research in Educational Development, 38(20):17-24. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008- 3855.2018.20.005 Lin, X. (2018). “Purchase Hope”: Children’s Educational Consumption in Urban Families. Sociological Studies, 2018(4):163-190+245. [Chinese] https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal -SHXJ201804007.htm Xue, H. (2017). Family capital and education acquisition: the perspective of shadow edu- cation. Educational Science Research, 2017(2):31-41+48. [Chinese] http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/6 71372794.html Li, J., & Xue, H. (2016). An Empirical Study on the Influence of Family Capital on Junior High School Students’ Participation in Ex- tracurricular Tuition Activities. Journal of Schooling Studies, 13(6):43-52. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005- 2232.2016.06.006 Li, J., & Xue, H. (2019). Parental participation, extracurricular tutoring and academic per- formance of middle school students. Re- search in Educational Development, 39(2):15-22. [Chinese] DOI: https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008- 3855.2019.02.005 Hou, J., Wen, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2004). Social Science Research Method Series: Structural Equation Model and Its Application. Educa- tion Science Press. Lareau, A. (1987). Social Class Differences in Family-school Relationships: The Im- portance of Cultural Capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2):73-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2112583 Received: 03 December 2020 Revised: 21 December 2020 Accepted: 04 January 2021 The Chinese version of this article has been published in Education Research Monthly 2020(9):3- 11+71. The English version has been authorized for being publication in BECE by the author(s) and the Chinese journal. 高翔, 薛海平. (2020). 家庭背景、家长参与和初中生影子教育参与: 来自 CEPS2015 数据的实证 研究.教育学术月刊, 2020(9):3-11+71. http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/671297651.html http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96925x/201701/671297651.html https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2018.20.005 https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2018.20.005 https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHXJ201804007.htm https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHXJ201804007.htm http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/671372794.html http://www.cqvip.com/qk/83877x/201702/671372794.html https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2016.06.006 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2016.06.006 https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2019.02.005 https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2019.02.005 https://doi.org/10.2307/2112583 Article-HaipingXue-BECE_title_29Jan2021 Article-HaipingXue-BECE_Maintext29Jan2021